Judge Sonia Motomayor is President Obama’s pick to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has an interesting track record to say the least.
Here is an article by Stuart Taylor in the National Journal about her infatuation with identity politics. This is nothing more than naked disgusting racism:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor — widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court — has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside The New York Times on May 15.
It deserves more scrutiny, because apart from Sotomayor’s Supreme Court prospects, her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
Silly me for thinking that the law was the law no matter what the ethnicity is of the one interpreting it. Obviously “inherent physiological or cultural differences” ought to lead to different results. only a philistine white male like myself would fail to see this obvious fact.
and here is a video capturing the real problem with Judge Motomayor’s vision regarding the role of the courts. Her view that the intermediate appellate courts are for policy making is a refreshingly honest glimpse into the liberal judicial mind at work.